Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

The Big Lie

The broad masses…more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. – Adolf Hitler

One of the most pernicious myths about sex work, common among prohibitionists, the general public, allies and even many activists, is that it is a “special case”; those who believe this pretend that sex work is different from all other forms of sex, all other forms work and (in the most extreme cases) all other human interactions. This is, of course, total and complete nonsense; not only is most sex transactional, but most of the arguments in favor of considering sex to be different from other activities are fallacious at best and pure garbage at worst. Drug-prohibition arguments can usually be converted into sex work-prohibition arguments by changing a few words, most arguments for abortion rights can be converted into arguments for sex worker rights without changing any words, and many, many issues bear a strong resemblance to sex work controversies for anyone with eyes to see. Because of this profound lack of valid differences I am never surprised when I encounter an article about something else which also says something about sex work; in this case it was especially unsurprising because neofeminist anti-sex propaganda all proceeds from the same vile agenda. Wendy McElroy’s “The Big Lie of a Rape Culture” is well worth reading in its own right, but since I’ve already written often about this false construct, its history, its construction and its legacy, I figured it would be more productive to compare the “rape culture” lie with the “sex trafficking” one instead. This bullet-point list from McElroy’s article is of particular interest:

The lie must be “grossly impudent” and “colossal” — for example, the lie that men and women are not human beings who share the same political interests, such as freedom of speech, but are separate classes with separate and antagonistic political interests.

The lie must be frequently repeated, because some people believe whatever they hear often enough or from enough people. For example, PC feminists who endorse the idea of a “rape culture” also interpret everything in society through its lens, from casual glances to the prospect of a nuclear winter. It is the constant explanation.

It should make the average person ask, “Who would lie about that?” It is assumed that women would not lie about rape, and that feminists would not commit the intellectual crime of a mass fabrication about women. After all, aren’t they for women?

A big lie must be maintained by the state. For example, tax-funded campuses become places where ideas are stifled rather than explored. In classrooms, only “correct” discussions occur, and they do so only by using “correct” words.

A big lie must impact “the deeper strata” of people’s “emotional nature.” Few images elicit as much emotion as that of women being savagely raped. That’s why “they are coming to rape our women!” has been a popular rallying cry to rouse men into battle.

It must be something many people wish to believe. The gender war has broadened and deepened since the ‘70s. There is a palpable anger within PC feminism and within many women who feel oppressed, whether or not they really are. The “rape culture” myth appeals to that anger.

A big lie is best expressed in a tone of moral outrage and in the name of a noble goal. Both aspects discourage casual critics and allow the liars to vilify any critic who dares to proceed. The rape-culture myth is advanced in the name of protecting women, and anyone who questions it is said to be defending rapists.

I think even the most casual reader can see how McElroy’s points also apply to the big lie of “sex trafficking”; note how few of her words I had to change here:

The lie must be “grossly impudent” and “colossal” — for example, the lie that women are wholly incapable of choosing to have sex for pragmatic reasons, so that literally every woman who engages in sex work was forced to do so by evil “pimps” or “traffickers” whether she admits it or not.

The lie must be frequently repeated, because some people believe whatever they hear often enough or from enough people. (‘Nuff said there, I think.)

It should make the average person ask, “Who would lie about that?” It is assumed that people who claim they want to “help” women and children would not promote a mass fabrication about them which results in grievous harm to the very people they claim to want to help.

A big lie must be maintained by the state. (Again, ‘nuff said.)

A big lie must impact “the deeper strata” of people’s “emotional nature.” Few images elicit as much emotion as that of women being repeatedly raped. Up to 110 times a day, even!

It must be something many people wish to believe. As I have often pointed out, the myth that men rather than women are in control of the sexual sphere has great emotional appeal to both insecure men and immature or warped women.

A big lie is best expressed in a tone of moral outrage and in the name of a noble goal. Both aspects discourage casual critics and allow the liars to vilify any critic who dares to proceed. The “sex trafficking myth” is advanced in the name of protecting women and children, and anyone who questions it is said to be defending rapists and slavers.

All prohibitionism is the same, all moral panics are very similar, and it doesn’t take a genius to see the similarities. Unfortunately, recognizing them requires wanting to discover the truth, and the mass of humanity is much more comfortable with big, familiar lies.

22 Responses

I hear what you are saying but there is a point in “big lies” where they are completely unbelievable – and I feel comfortable pronouncing anyone who believes in them “fools”.

Case in point is the U.S. military’s war on sexual assault. The numbers I saw were SO EXTREME they boggled my mind … I had to get in and see how, and what, they were counting as “sexual assaults”.

Turns out – whatever number they quote IS NOT the number of women who reported an assault. It’s the actual combined total of those women – PLUS women who answer (on an annual ANONYMOUS command climate survey) “Yes, I’ve been sexually assaulted in the past year or know someone who has been.” No report filed mind you – just answering the question “yes” is enough to get it counted in the military’s sexual assault numbers.

Secondly – is the “dumbing down” of the definition of sexual assault. It used to be … “penetration, however slight” … then by the time I retired – it had progressed to “groping” or touching breasts.

NOW – it can include TOUCHING A WOMAN’S SHOULDERS. I shit you not – I still have to take the SAPR training … and the training video this year gave an example of a male civilian worker touching a uniformed female with one hand on her shoulder. Now – I will admit – it looked a bit creepy … but that’s all he did and that was produced as an example of a sexual assault.

A sexual assault is now basically ANYTHING a woman deems it is. We are literally 12 milliseconds from the next “dumbing down” of the definition – and that will be “gaze rape”.

Why is this lie told? It’s told so that neo-feminists and progressive statists, who’ve never liked the military – can get their dick skinners on the entire military establishment and choke it to death. There are now calls to remove the handling of sexual assault cases from Commanding Officers – and handling them in extra-UCMJ fashion in civilian courts.

In the UK, the legal position of an assault is any touch (at a minimum) without consent. It’s quite common for people in conversation to touch the other’s arm, but technically this is an “assault”—and I guess it’s the same in the US.

But how this turns into a “sexual” assault is, I suppose, in the mind of the person being touched; any unrequested touch is not only an “assault”, but turns is perceived as a “sexual assault”.

In the US – we have “assault” and we have “battery”. The definition of “assault” here in the US is typical of what you describe in the UK. There doesn’t need to be any intent to harm (or any harm done) to constitute “assault”. All that needs to exist is reasonable “apprehension” in the mind of the receiver and a perception of imminent danger.

But all of this is SUPPOSED to be based on a “reasonable man” standard – and that most people, put in the same situation, would feel equally apprehensive or threatened. It’s the “reasonable man” that seems to always be forgotten in many assault cases.

In fact, I had this issue Saturday night with an off-duty cop in the bar who was drunk and causing a disturbance. I told him to leave … he pulls out his badge and says … “I’m a cop motherfucker!”. I tell him … “you’re drunk – and that badge means shit to me – NOW LEAVE!” Then he touched me – a light touch on the shoulder. I told him … “don’t touch me again”. I was trying to compute if a simple “touch” would hold up in court as an assault by the “reasonable man” standard – because if it did constitute assault – then I would be in my rights to beat his ass right there. That’s what I wanted to do anyway and it’s the whole reason I asked him to stop touching me – I was actually “reverse encouraging” him to keep touching (this is a covert testosterone challenge – because if he doesn’t touch, then he loses face) – but I was hoping he’d touch a bit harder, with some force … which he didn’t. I’m not even sure he touched me the second time – I didn’t feel it. Anyway … I guess he “called” me on my little testosterone challenge – that’s how he weaseled out of it. Bottom line – I didn’t feel the guy had crossed the “assault” line by the “reasonable man” standard … so I didn’t feel I was legally authorized to use force on him. Whatever, I switched tactics and told him he had five seconds to leave or I was calling his supervisor – and since he had showed me his badge, I knew his name and who exactly to report. That worked – he yelled a few curse words and turned around and left.

The stuff I saw in the sexual assault training video – though creepy – should NOT have, by the “reasonable man” standard, have caused apprehension in the mind of the woman that was touched. A creepy feeling? Yeah sure – but not a feeling that she was imminent danger of being raped – NO WHERE CLOSE!

I went to a HEART concert in 1979 by myself. A gal came up from behind me while I was watching the concert and slipped her hand around in front of me and grabbed my package – then she started massaging it and then slipped her hands in my pants to “barehand” me a bit. Was this “assault”? Well, maybe – if you take out the reasonable man thinking. But in reality – a “reasonable man” has to conclude that, at that point in my life – I had been laid only by one woman a few times … and this was only the second girl in my life to touch me there … and I got GREAT pleasure from it. That is … until I turned around I looked at her face – HOT body … but her face was 12 miles of hot and crumbling Georgia asphalt!

But today – could I report that girl for a sexual assault (or maybe even sexual battery)? Fuck yeah. And that’s just kind of stupid.

If I touch a girl on the breasts – outside her clothing … briefly … is that a sexual assault? I don’t think it should be under most circumstances. If we’re in the middle of Walmart does she have a reasonable expectation that I’m about to rape her? I don’t think so. I think what I’ve done might be an assault – but I don’t see where the “sexual” comes into it. I don’t think I should get away scott-free with that kind of behavior – I need to pay a price … but I’m not sure being charged with a sexual crime is the right answer.

Oh yeah … another bouncer story. Two weeks ago during Cinco De Mayo this tipsy old gal comes up to me. Now she’s older than me … but she was in great shape, attractive and pretty high class dressed. I would have done her. Anyway – I was grabbing a trash can outside the bar and she runs up and feels up my right bicep. I turn … and see her. Then she goes … “Hey, can I touch your chest? Okay now … if I touch your chest – you DO NOT get to touch my boobs in return alright?” She’s got a friend with her – and her friend is looking at her like she’s batshit crazy.

So I’m like – yeah okay, you can touch my chest. So she grabs a handful of my right pec and starts this “ohhhh … ahhhhh” and she shivers. Then I’m like … “anything else you want to touch?” And her friend yells … “NO!” and grabs her … as they’re running off (in high heels – which was hilarious) I’m yelling … “Hey I don’t even get your phone number?”

Touches … people are WAY too sensitive about them. But at least this woman FELT FREE enough to ask me if she could do it. Men? Heh, “hey lady, do you mind if I touch your chest?” … if I said that to a woman I’d be arrested. JUST for saying it!

We do know that at least one out of every four women will be “raped,” i.e. forced to perform a sex act against their will at least once in their lifetime, the vast majority before age 40. (I believe this is from a Masters and Johnson report in the mid-1980’s, but it has been a while.)
Sexual misconduct in many forms is rampant in the military, even if you use stricter standards. It is probably not as prevalent as the neo-feminist alarmists try to make it out to be, but it is still a problem. It also seems to be a problem with law enforcement. See Norma Jean Almodovar’s web site “Police, Prostitution, Politics,” http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/
for more on this subject.

The term “sexual misconduct” is a pretty loaded term – but it’s not at all what I’m talking about when it comes to sexual assault and battery.

“Misconduct” includes, for instance … things like paying for sex. It includes consensual sex between seniors and subordinates (something that IS NOT tolerated in the military – BUT IS tolerated in the Oval Office … read: Lewinsky and IS tolerated on every College Campus in America).

So “sexual misconduct”, in my mind – means inappropriate sexual conduct – and that’s something LESS than rape or sexual assault. And yes, you’re going to see more of it in the military because we have higher standards of conduct. Which, yes – we fail to meet – because the average age of a serviceman is somewhere in in the highly hormonal early 20’s … and it ain’t that way at Chevron … or … WalMart – or anywhere else in the civilian world.

I had an umbrella term for sexual misconduct when I was working in Navy personnel – I called it … “zipper problems”. And – as I said – it’s not tolerated when it’s discovered – I relieved COUNTLESS Command Master Chiefs and Submarine Chiefs of the Boat who were caught in “inappropriate” consensual relationships (well, I didn’t “relieve” them personally – but I got involved and also had to find replacements for these men ASAP – so I know the cases and I know what we did with these guys). I only ever handled ONE such case “under the desk”. That involved another Master Chief that worked for the Master Chief of the Navy (the “big” one). The MCPON is in DC and I was in Tennessee. This Master Chief made more trips to Tennessee than anyone I know – and for some pretty slinky reasons. I poked around a bit and found out he was spending a lot of time with a Third Class Petty Officer that worked for me. I told him to back off – but he kept coming down. So I called the big guy and told him what was going on. The guy was immediately retired – and WITHOUT a ceremony. That was his slam – what else did he deserve? The girl was all “ga-ga” over the guy so it was consensual – he was just an E-9 and she was an E-4, that was the only problem. Wouldn’t have been a problem if he had worked at Apple – but he worked for the MCPON so he had to go. She was hot as shit though … and since he already had 30 in anyway – probably well worth the trouble for him. I think he married her eventually.

Krulac, I was using “sexual misconduct” as general term which starts with yours, and goes up to sex assault and rape. And it is rampant, although much worse among civilian contractors overseas than among service personnel.

Well – I don’t know where you got that – but the term “sexual misconduct” should not be used as a blanket term for sexual assault and battery. I was discussing sexual assault and battery – not misconduct – the two are separate.

I disagree that the military has a bigger problem with actual SEXUAL ASSAULT than the civilian population at large. As I’ve stated – the numbers of assaults are based on faulty data – and faulty methods of collecting that data.

“Misconduct” – well that’s a separate issue. But let’s get something straight – MOST “sexual misconduct” in the military – would be absolutely no problem in a civilian setting.

Adultery – is considered “sexual misconduct” (and yes, I’ve seen people prosecuted under the UCMJ for it). Adultery is NOT against any civilian law – unless it’s an archaic one somewhere still on the books – but it’s not EVER prosecuted.

Fraternization – can include non-sexual conduct or just “buddying around”. But when it’s sexual it is considered “sexual misconduct” … this is senior / subordinate consensual stuff that crosses the “khaki” lines. Used to be JUST to forbid relationships between officers and enlisted, now also enforced between Chiefs and E-6 and below (in the Navy anyway).

Paying a hooker – sexual misconduct. You can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for paying for sex.

Masturbating on Watch – hey, I was on Submarines … with the biggest perverts on the planet. We had a guy who just couldn’t help himself and had to yank it every time he was on watch and was caught numerous times with his pants, and his watchbelt with a .45 cal 1911 around his ankles. CO busted him and disqualified him on every watch except barge watch. Day after he was busted – he got busted again for yanking while he was on a “phone watch”. Sexual misconduct. We all knew not to ever “sneak up” on this guy – cuz you KNEW what he’d be doing.

Sexual Harassment – well some may consider this “misconduct” – I consider it something separate though.

So “misconduct” includes a lot of silly shit … that I really don’t consider to be “end of the world” type stuff. But yeah, military has a problem with “misconduct” – we basically wrote the book on it. I’m almost sure everything from tying a girl up – all the way through to “gerbling” was invented and field tested by members of the military. It got worse when we started enlisting women – because they have some of their own “pervs” and brought in new ideas. I dated a Sailor once and she had an idea to take a train transformer and connect the positive lead to my leg – and the negative to hers. The idea is that the electrical current would accumulate in the areas where “wet contact” was made and provide for extra “stimulation”.

It did not work – I think maybe because we weren’t “sweaty” enough. Maybe it was good thing it didn’t work though! 😛
Well

Wait….excuse my ignorance…but “Masturbation on Watch” is a thing?! Enough of a thing that they made a rule saying you can’t do it?!

I don’t know anyone who served in a submarine before (my male relatives who served were in Army and Marines), but a submarine sounds like the most unerotic environment ever! Why would someone wanna jerk in a submarine, on duty? To relieve tension and anxiety, or boredom, or what?

CDC says 18.3 percent of women raped (1.4 percent of men), 5.6 percent of women (5.3 percent of men) experienced sexual violence other than rape. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf
That is 23.9 percent of women who have experienced sexual violence and 7 percent of men.
I did not get the one in four figure from Mary Koss, whoever she may be.
There are websites out there that list the 1 in 4 number, and I don’t think they got it from Ms. Koss.

fairly standard behaviour for abolitionists. Create the worst possible number and repeat it endlessly. Feeding perfectly into the big lie. Right up there with 300,000 trafficked children annually each being raped 30 times a day.

From “Rape and Sexual Assault ,” Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D;
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center;
Medical University of South Carolina.

“In 1997, there were 96,122 reported forcible rapes. (Federal Bureau of Investigation. (released November 22, 1998). Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports, 1997, p.26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.)”
“An estimated 70 of every 100,000 females in the country were reported rape victims in 1997, a decrease 1% from 1996 13% from 1993. (Ibid.)…”
“Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal sex, the National Violence Against Women Survey found that 1 of 6 U.S. Women [16.6%] and 1 of 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape as a child and/or adult. According to estimates, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted annually by an intimate partner in the United States. (Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998, November). A Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, {at} p. 2 & 5. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.)”
“In 1996, more than two-thirds of rape/sexual assaults committed in the nation remained unreported. (Ringel, C. (1997, November). Criminal Victimization in 1996, Changes 1995-1996 with Trends 1993-1996, NCJ-165812, p.3. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.)”

I am not a prohibitionist, and when I finally found a copy of Koss’s 1983 Ms. magazine article, I found it laughable. But rape exists in our society, and is a matter not of sex but an assault on someone’s body, just as if someone had beaten the crap out of you. The various other forms of unwanted sexual attention (what I unfortunately misstated as “sexual Misconduct” to Krulac above): mental, physical, and emotional, are problems; many of which I believe dectiminalization of prostitution and an honest exploration of the American sexual psyche would go far to fix.

Once again: If the person making the statistics gets to define what’s included, and has political reasons for them to be large, they will always be much larger than objective measures. This is not rocket science. Remember, I was raped; I’ve studied this extensively. And no, it’s not nearly as common as political feminists love fantasizing it is.

Framing men as the ones with the power in the sexual sphere allows women to justify any kind of duplicity or betrayal in the sexual arena because they are “weak” and “oppressed”. It also justifies denying men any aid, sympathy, or compassion.

the whole rape culture thing is getting completely out of hand. One more thing for men to hate themselves for. I have a friend who keeps posting rape culture bullshit on FB and I just want to slap him upside the head. If half of that shit was true no man would want to keep his testicles. I don’t appreciate being called a potential rapist just because I have a sex drive

Mr. Gerasimov, you are correct: they do use what are essentially the same arguments. These are also the same arguments that were used against alcohol in the early 1900’s, pornography and marijuana today. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Mr. Gerasimov, you are correct: they do use what are essentially the same arguments. These are also the same arguments that were used against alcohol in the early 1900’s, pornography and marijuana today. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".